[IP] High Tech, Strangled By the Beltway
High Tech, Strangled By the Beltway
By Ken Kay
Saturday, March 13, 2004; Page A19
After 28 years in Washington, I've moved to Tucson. I spent eight years
working on Capitol Hill and the last two decades representing the interests
of high-tech companies. I came to Washington looking to get involved in
thoughtful policymaking. Right now I think there's a lot more of that going
on outside the Capital Beltway than within.
The current Washington debate on global sourcing is the latest example. The
trend among companies toward locating service and product development
abroad is disturbing to many of us as Americans. But the fact is that some
trends these days are global and simply beyond our control. The strident
remarks coming from policymakers are likely to lead to little improvement
in our overall economic situation. In the same way that the Soviets'
Sputnik satellite woke up the country to the need for math and science
education, the outsourcing conversation cries out for a constructive,
long-term solution that ensures Americans have world-class education, a
world-class workforce and the ability to remain a competitive global leader.
Another area where the Washington debate is more about heat than light is
export controls. While these outdated regulations are ostensibly designed
to prevent our most powerful computers from falling into the wrong hands,
they are largely a fig leaf. They have virtually no impact on the flow of
raw computing. Their real impact is on U.S. manufacturers who are prevented
from selling computers worldwide. It's a glaring example of government
policy that can't keep up with our new high-tech world. Government
regulations work well for industries that change their formulas every 70 to
80 years, such as corn flakes or cola. They aren't at all well suited for
high-tech industries that turn over 80 percent of their product lines every
18 months.
The same rhetorical flourishes used by those trying to control
uncontrollable computing are directed toward pornography and intellectual
property. In fact, proponents know that the regimes are likely to be
ineffective, because the Internet is a global medium on which purely
national responses have little impact. U.S. laws by themselves are
toothless. Policymakers must address the void in our international
frameworks. It's not clear whether we need an Internet equivalent of the
Law of the Sea, but we do need comprehensive solutions to global challenges
when national responses don't work.
Solutions are hard to come by in Washington, though. One of my biggest
disappointments in my 19-year lobbying career was not being able to get the
research-and-development tax credit made permanent. Nearly every
policymaker was for it, but it never got done. The tech industry was
looking for crispness and clarity of tax policy. Washington functions on
the spin principle: Widespread recognition equals success. Unfortunately,
what that often comes down to is that getting things spun is more important
than getting them done.
To be sure, the high-tech sector is not always a consistent partner with
government. When I began as executive director of a group of high-tech CEOs
that I helped to start 14 years ago, one of them said to me, "We'll need to
bring baseball bats to Washington and bash in some TV sets to get their
attention." That attitude was representative of a true antipathy for
government existing in major pockets of the industry.
Today it would be more accurate to describe the high-tech approach to
government as ambivalent. High-tech wants help in some areas and deplores
it in others. The tech sector needs to grow up and be clear about the areas
in which it needs government as a consistent and dependable partner. For
example, with the global skills race upon us, the computer industry needs
government to do its part in encouraging investment in technology and
innovation and in properly educating the U.S. workforce. The information
technology industry should be clearer about its advocacy of such a
constructive role for government.
Since moving West, I realize more than ever that those outside the Beltway
understand the true nature of the evolving global market in a way that no
one in Washington seems to. The head of economic development for Colorado
Springs recently named for me the three places he saw as his city's chief
competitors: They were three comparable cities in India! He said Colorado
Springs needs policies that will allow its young people to compete with the
young people of those Indian cities. It was stunning to hear someone from
the Rocky Mountains get the global challenge better than anyone I had
talked to inside the Beltway.
The writer is chairman of Infotech Strategies and former executive director
of the Computer Systems Policy Project.
© 2004 The Washington Post
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/